digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Proposed Firefox 3 Theme For Mac OS X Looks Exactly Like Safari

bugzilla.mozilla.org — Firefox 3 is having an identity crisis on the Mac. Recent screenshots reveal that the new theme is striking similar to Apple's Safari. If you can't innovate, imitate.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dcconz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+17*Edit* tried to post a direct link but didn't work
    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11It won't work because it is bug database server of developers and concerned users, not some god damn theme contest page which you can DOS on Digg.

      • dcingraham, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Take your meds. It's gonna be alright.
  • nathan1313us, on 10/26/2007, -41/+242Well since OSX has a "flow" to it if you will why wouldn't they make it like safari. I know this is hard for apple fans to understand but there is more to a piece of software then how it looks. I'll pause for a moment and let that one sink in... sorry to burst your bubble
    • Ireland, on 10/31/2007, -66/+11***** I meant to digg you down, my mistake
      • zybch, on 10/31/2007, -19/+11Thats okay, to make things even I'll digg YOU down.
        That okay?
        • madwelshacre, on 10/31/2007, -16/+3duder, you're a douche
        • celkin, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Digg me down too, please
          • yaknowit, on 10/31/2007, -11/+3and me
          • Ireland, on 10/31/2007, -10/+3Digg me the opposite to down, I'd dare you not to.
          • Spuy767, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2dugg for obscure "Opposite Day" reference. However, be sure to do like the manager in the end.
          • Konstantino, on 10/31/2007, -2/+4C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!
    • iNunchuk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18He's right - Although this new theme is a welcome change; it still may not address the issue (at least on PPC macs) that the system preferences look very crappy and feel utterly buggy.
    • SgtBlue, on 10/25/2007, -7/+36I don't seem to see the part where this singular group containing everyone who likes Apple products unanimously said anything in relation to this article, much less that they were opposed to it. Your attitude that Apple fans are all unthinking fanboys went out of style a long time ago, give it up already.
      • emer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Unfortunately his generalization while not completely accurate is also not without merit.
    • superal1394, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7How bout fixing the glitch where if you surf a bunch of flash based pages (Youtube, for example) it locks up and crashes?
    • KibibyteBrain, on 10/25/2007, -7/+41Can people please stop generalizing Mac users. I really don't go for the whole everything matches eyecandy mantra. I am just someone who loves Unix who wanted a Unix desktop system that felt less like a Linux server with a GUI duct taped to it. I love Linux, its still probably my favorite OS and most used OS, but I use it from my Mac. Maybe in a few years when I can plug a monitor into a linux box and have it actual plug and play extend my desktop onto it, I'll switch back to my wife of Linux. Buf for now, OSX makes a fine mistress.
      • postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7i'm a straight, conservative non-media employed person that does not use itunes and i love my mac.
        generalize that! (smiles)

        btw: i love my mac because it is just a pretty linux box.
        that should piss enough people off.

        btw:why does explorer running under parallel run faster then firefox or safari on a mac? it's even faster then if it's running on an xp box?
      • celkin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I am SOOOO telling Linux about your affair...
    • KurtangleTN, on 10/31/2007, -19/+10You're right, there is more to an app then how it looks. That's why so many DON'T use Firefox. No keychain support, extremely slow compared to Safari, it's less stable then any other browser I've tried on OS X. The fact that it looks like a Window's program is just kind of the posterboy of the lack of Mac support by the Firefox team.

      I'd love to use it, but I just simply can't on OS X. I take away a couple of useful extentions and the power of adblock for Camino's lessor powerful ad block and no real extensions,
      • superal1394, on 10/31/2007, -2/+13I wouldn't call it unusable. Firefox is very utilitarian. Yes, it hiccups, but the benefits in my mind outweigh the glitches. With ABP installed, most pages load much faster simply due to less being loaded than the superior render time of, say, Safari.

        I just think the uniformity of Firefox across platforms is an accomplishment in itself, and often overlooked.
    • inkswamp, on 10/25/2007, -6/+32nathan1313us,

      How about if you don't stereotype Mac users as know-nothings, and we won't stereotype non-Mac users as arrogant jerks who externalize their fear and lack of knowledge of other platforms by painting its users with a wide brush in an attempt to marginalize it and pretend it doesn't matter?

      Deal?

      • eplawless, on 10/10/2007, -12/+12I don't understand; both of those are stereotypes of Mac users. What are you trying to pull?
      • lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2nathan1313us has a little dick and must slam others to make himself feel good about his choice of tech.
    • donwilson2, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5I think it looks awesome.
      • tracydanger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If this doesn't end up being the default theme, I hope it is an option someone makes.
    • drlha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Disregarding your stupid generalization of "Mac Users", the fact is that the Safari look and feel isn't just the default Mac look, if you don't believe me take a look at Camino or Shiira which are both web browsers that look great, fit in extremely well with the overall Mac "look and feel" and don't look like Safari. This look does have the feeling of one of those "look alike" themes.

      On an unrelated note, can we please have the tabs attaching to the web pages, and not be upside down, it makes no sense to do it the way shown in that link!
      • M4cb0y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Both of those designs are probably going to change once Leopard comes out

        And anyway, this doesn't "fit in" with the design of OS X either. The arrows are inconsistent with those in OS X, they shouldn't have that little pill in the top corner on that type of window, and the shading on the tabs is messed up.. it just looks like a cheap rip-off to be honest.

        I know this is a mockup but they should at least try to come up with something original. This is definitely a step up from the Firefox 2 theme, though..
    • dmadip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ha ha
    • Dylan47, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i don't care what similarities it has, it looks awesome!
  • OS2Guy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+80I like it! Safari or Firefox 3 - give me extensions!
    • ttfadia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Exactly. I'm not feeling the negative tone of the submitter's description, this is a dream come true!
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Exactly! Firefox looks like ***** on the Mac, and often performs about the same. I like the look, feel, and speed of Safari much more. But no extensions is a deal-breaker for me. Firefox for Windows (and I'd assume Linux) is fantastic, but it's just the best of all evils on the Mac.
      • qMac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Many users of Safari don't realize that it too has many extensions you can get for it. Check out saft or safariblock.
    • hirui, on 09/21/2008, -0/+0http://www.takebacktheweb.org/
  • WhereAmI, on 10/10/2007, -1/+53So if I made a theme that involved potato chips would you submit it saying "Proposed FF3 theme for OS X looks like potato chips?" My point is nobody is assigned to this and there are some submissions. If you don't like it, make a different one.
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yes, but would a potato chip theme get you Layd?

      For those that get that, I apologize yet again
    • lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Uh oh, looks like the potato chip fanboys are out tonight.
  • Zero2aHero, on 10/21/2007, -1/+87I think it looks quite nice, it fits the look of newer OSX apps (ie, iTunes, Mail, etc..) and looks like it will blend in nicely with Leopard.
    • dragazis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It certainly looks Leopard ready. I hope this ticket pulls through before release.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Indeed. Though by the looks of it, it still doesn't address the one thing that irritates me to no end on the default theme: it doesn't show favicons on the bookmark bar. I just have two dozen favicons with no description (that only show up after having swapped the theme) so I can keep more links up there. Sure, it doesn't look as clean, but give me a freaking checkbox to turn them on!
    • kalkin, on 10/21/2007, -2/+1sorry but am i missing something here? that theme has been available since Firefox version 1. where's the news here? buried as lame
  • Eriksson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Looks like the skins at http://www.takebacktheweb.org/
    • superal1394, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3ooooh very nice. Great link. Much better than the generic Firefox skin.
    • zongamin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The UNO version is great - been using it for a while
    • k3vinmartian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, those skins are great and I use them too. However, I have found several bugs in them that regularly frustrate me, mainly the inability to drag and drop favorites in the bookmark bar. In addition, several add-ons actually break the layout when used and most icons don't match. Therefore, it would be nice to see a default skin that provides a good base for developers to make add-ons more mac stable.
  • valadares, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2It's very nice. They could make the search box plain white also the star in the adress box, then i'd call it a winner.
  • davidhildreth, on 10/10/2007, -23/+11FF on OS X has been a lost cause for years now.
    • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8FF on Linux isn't so hot, either, but maybe that's just Linux and X windows.
      • DonCarcharo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I agree on both accounts. However the Windows version sure is sweet. Clearly the best browser out there on any platform.
        • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2"Clearly the best browser out there on any platform."

          ...

          Um...

          Are you joking with us? If so you pulled a good one lol. Any browser that's extremely slow, not very secure, almost never has any innovations and is only partly web standards compliant isn't a browser worthy of calling the best browser on any platform. The only thing Firefox really does well is extensions, which even IE has (and IE was the first browser to support an extension system, back in 1997).
          • ripdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We don't need any more IE bashing, it's been done to death before.

            Wait, you WEREN'T bashing IE? Whoa man, get off the drugs.
          • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I was just pointing out that while FF has extensions, it wasn't the first as I've heard many fanboy's claim. Personally, I'd probably use IE vs. Firefox if I didn't have Opera. It's actually faster (in all benchmarks I've ever seen, though Opera's always the fastest), and that's all I really care about. Sure it has security holes, but as Firefox is based on a similar extension system the major security holes are mutual between , and an anti-virus under Windows clears up the rest. As for web compliance, yeah, IE sucks at that, but since 75% of the market still use it, websites are programmed with IE-friendliness in mind.

            I'm not trying to say IE is great or anything, I still think it sucks. I was just pointing out that, compared to Firefox, IE is fairly similar. The only real one-ups FF has it its theme system and web standards compliance (to a degree), but the fact that the gecko rendering engine is really slow and FF has a huge RAM leak, I'd much rather use a slimmer browser.

            An ideal browser would be a fast browser, but with little to no security holes, tons of features, innovations in every update, etc. And there is one, it's called Opera.

            I've spent the last year researching browsers, including their rendering engine, their features, extensibility, how much innovation has been pumped into each build, their security, etc. A far cry more than the average FF user who still thinks FF was the first application to implement a tabbed interface (which was in the early 90's with a word processor that first used this and Opera was the first major browser to use it and enchance it in 2000).

            So you can say that I’m on drugs for “supporting” IE, but if you look at the statistics, IE and Firefox each have their pros and cons when compared to one another, and personally, I think IEs cons (the lack of web standards and slightly worse security holes) isn’t as bad as Firefox’s (RAM leak, very slow rendering of web pages and poor management of tabs). Though, in my opinion, Opera’s still better in every way compared to either of the two.
      • kahrytan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wrong. Firefox on Linux has taken over the rest of Linux browsers.
    • WhereAmI, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'm on Firefox linux right now...I alternate between Konqueror and Firefox.
  • Kazrog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27I like it, looks much nicer than FireFox does today. It's consistent with the rest of OS X finally, and if anything it's nicer looking than Safari.
  • wootmacs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11so?
  • Fordi, on 11/11/2007, -0/+79"This is a tracking bug for the new Mac OS X Theme for Firefox 3."

    In other words, they're trying to make the default theme for OS-X look like it's an OS-X app. Don't see the problem here.
  • DonCarcharo, on 10/24/2007, -1/+91Wait so you mean now the app will blend in with the rest of my OS when I use it? The horror! The horrorrrrr!
  • JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Mozilla, you know what, I'm all for you giving Mac users a Safari like theme-
    As long as you give us Windows users an *option* of a Vista/IE7 interface.
    • WhereAmI, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Who the hell wants that? IE7 pisses me off.
  • stutimandal, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11This is cute. So now no one can claim FF looks worse compared to Safari. In all other areas, it surely defeats Safari.
    • inkswamp, on 10/21/2007, -5/+12Not really. Safari is faster on OS X compared to FF (the difference, btw, is far more pronounced on older Macs, than on newer.) FF lacks support for a lot of essential system-wide OS X features like keychain and dictionary. FF tends to crash more often. FF takes for friggin' ever to launch the first time after you've logged in. Also, if you're a stickler for standards, Safari is the only one of the two that passes the ACID2 test.
      Not saying FF is bad. I do use it from time-to-time, but to say that it defeats Safari in "all other areas" is a gross overstatement.
      • iofthestorm, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Well, Firefox 3 nightlies are much faster than 2, and I think they are definitely working on more OS X integration stuff like that, this is just one bit of that effort. So yeah, Firefox 3 probably will be better than Safari in most areas.
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4In all other areas Firefox beats Safari?
      Safari: Passes Acid2.
      Firefox: Fails Acid2.
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Firefox 3 will pass ACID2, as far as I'm aware. Though I'm not sure if it'll respect image color profiles, not that I especially care as I save my web images in a way that it doesn't matter.
        • iofthestorm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Firefox 3 nightlies passed Acid2 a while ago.
        • JohnM5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think FF3 will support color profiles if it doesn't already
    • mvent2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Firefox 3 has passed Acid2 since Alpha 2.
    • antitab, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"In all other areas, it surely defeats Safari."
      Surely, if we are using the definition of "defeat" as "is better than", and the definition of "better" as "exceeds", then it defeats Safari in the area of memory and CPU usage.
    • omnivector, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Except for that pesky little speed issue... *rolls eyes*
      How about system integration? (i.e. overall fitting in with OS X) The preferences, widgets, etc all look out of place.
      Memory usage?
    • lgc90, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Doesn't it take forever to launch? That's pretty much the sole reason It's not my default browser...
    • Kelmon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Repeat after me: Firefox is not an OS X application

      My preference is for what's good about Firefox to be integrated into the Camino project so that we can have the best of both worlds. Cross-platform applications are nice in one respect but it does mean that they end up catering to the lowest common denominator, or Windows as it's called by everyone else. Give me a proper Cocoa application any day of the week over Firefox...

      Looking like an OS X application is not enough.
  • curlyman500, on 10/22/2007, -2/+12Yay now it matchs, yeah I'm shallow so what
  • dawesdust12, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7That first screenshot looks absolutely gorgeous
  • dolske, on 10/10/2007, -0/+45Seems like Mac Firefox users have consistently complained that Firefox doesn't fit into the OS X theme/style, and have asked for something that looks more Safari like. How dare someone listen to their requests!
    • caspy7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is EXACTLY what I was going to say.
      Mac users complained for ever about it not matching and now that it does let's all go out and complain? Bravo.
    • keyo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Benchmarks show Firefox runs slow on macs, I would use something QT based like opera, safari/webkit. GTK+ browsers are slow.
      • prammy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Firefox on OS X does not use GTK in the same way that Firefox on windows does not use GTK either.
        • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It uses some form of crap which makes it half the speed drawing on World's most advanced 2D accelerated OS/Window Manager which uses all OpenGL functions it can.


    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2People wanted them to use OS X native Widgets and OS X technologies and stop acting like a damn emulated X11 program on NeXT based OS with Cocoa.

      Aqua? I could care less, I pay $25 to Unsanity to get rid of OS X default theme.

      I have run Yahoo Mail BETA (the horror!) on Virtual PC 7 with Quad G5, emulated IE 6. Guess what? It performs BETTER than OS X Native (!) Firefox OS X. Can you believe this? I personally couldn't believe my eyes and removed all traces of Firefox from my system.

      • luserspaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, and Firefox 3 will also have Aqua-themed widgets, and it runs faster. Firefox on Mac has not gotten the same love as other platforms up to this point, but Firefox 3 will change a lot of that.
    • SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The main problem isn't how it looks, it's its use (or lack thereof) of system-wide resources. Dictionary, keychain, quartz... Apple gives us a lot of system-wide tools, but Firefox doesn't use them. This is what will keep Camino as the better, older brother; the younger Firefox is still way behind it.
  • Rice, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13Copy. Camino.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Camino IS Firefox, except it has a Cocoa UI instead of XUL. It's an identical rendering engine. And while Camino definitely looks better than Firefox does on the Mac, it has all of Safari's shortcomings since it doesn't use XUL (no using the large repository of themes and extensions that Firefox allows). Basically, there's no advantage over Safari.
  • plazman30, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6I have a PowerBook G4 and I have to say FireFox is WAY slower on that platform than either Safari or Camino (I use Camino). Though the G4 is an older machine, I tend to think that it should run as least as fast as Camino does. They both use the Gecko rendering engine. I tend to wonder how much overhead is taken up the skinnable UI.

    It's funny. Apple has released Safari for Windows, and it's FAST. It's page rendering times are really fast on my PC at work. The UI needs a little work, though. The fact that Safari exists on Windows (as well as iTunes), makes me think that Apple has ported the Cocoa framework over to Windows. If GnuStep could get some help from Apple, Cocoa could easily become the development platform of choice for cross platform apps.
    • genericface, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It's funny because none of what you said has anything to do with the article. Well, you did say Firefox...so half a point.
    • WhereAmI, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2idk what your problem is but my teachers use Firefox on their powerbooks (school website information during class on the projector, no porn has ever popped up) Thats my only experience with Powerbooks though.

      Webkit. Konqueror.
    • keyo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is everyone digging him down? He has a valid point. Engines based on trolltech's QT run fast on every platform, while gtk+ sucks, especially on mac. Opera and Safari are the fastest browsers around funnily enough both using QT. Trolltech and Opera are both Norway based. norway code ftw.
      • prammy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It might very well be that in your post, beneath comparisons between QT and GTK (which are not used in Firefox on OS X) might lie a valid point. But I have my doubts about that.
    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Firefox will never work fast as Safari or Opera unless Mozilla guys start to code instead of looking new, unique ways to spy users to Google.

    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Firefox will never work fast as Safari or Opera unless Mozilla guys start to code instead of looking new, unique ways to spy users to Google.

    • digitalpencil, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1about:config
      nework.http.pipelining = true
      network.http.maxrequests = 30
      network.http.proxy.pipelining = true
      ngLayout.initialpaint.delay = 0

      There.. that should speed ***** up for you!
      • luserspaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, please sprinkle magic fairy dust on your browser. HTTP Pipelining isn't enabled because it can break on some web servers. The ngLayout.initialpaint.delay pref doesn't actually make anything faster, it just makes the first paint of a webpage come more quickly, which usually slows down loading the entire page.
    • schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3too bad Safari for Windows sucks...
      • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Fits right in with every other windows app then
        • potofgravy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Do you want to actually make a point or are you too busy with your head up your arse?
        • DarkDx, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1But if he had said "Safari in Windows rocks" you would have said "stands out from every other windows app then"
  • hotdamn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I don't know why, but I love this.
  • elithrar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fits in with Leopard and the move away from brushed metal. Even the latest Opera alpha has a similar look. Not sure why people are getting worked up about it.
  • Apoy, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Why are they going after the OS X design? I mean yes the OS X has really cool design, but can't they have their own? Even KDE 4 is after OS X.
    • manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It's a browser, not a different desktop environment. It makes sense that they'd want a Firefox theme for OS X that matches the OS X design. Same for Windows, and for Linux, though on the latter two, Firefox has historically seemed more integrated. This is part of a push to make Firefox seem more at home on a Mac than it had before.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because OS X is about having a consistant experience through all of your apps. A similar look and feel results in a quicker learning curve for new stuff. I can hit Cmd+, and get to the prefs of an app I just downloaded without having to read a help file or check the menus, because it's always the shortcut for prefs. The only thing that consistent on Windows is Alt+F4. It makes sense for the one most widely known app that's an outcast to finally work itself in properly.
    • tgoose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That KDE 4 design was a *mock-up*.

      KDE 4 in general looks much cleaner than KDE 3, but "clean" does not equal "OS X-like."
  • thunkedup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Firefox is great for development, but why do their form elements look like remnants of Mosaic?
  • ChillyWilly5280, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11I'd rather see the effort go into Camino. It already has a nice UI, just needs more of the functionality that Firefox has.
    • manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5While Camino's a great product, I see why there's a need to divert this to Firefox. Camino can never run Firefox extensions due to the fact that its UI is Cocoa, not XUL (this also makes it seem more integrated by default, but I digress). So you'd have to switch Camino to XUL (which would basically make it exactly like Firefox/Mac is now) or create a separate extension system for Camino (which wouldn't have the automatic vast set of extensions that Firefox already has).
      • dragazis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I know you probably wont, but trust me (As I have been using developer seeds of Leopard since released to us) when I say Camino is not nearly as ready as FF3 is for Leopard. I have been using the beta's ever since they started, especially the latest, and I can say that FF3 is more stable than Camino 1.5 or 2.0nighlties on Leopard. Not only is it more stable it starts up faster than Camino 1.5 and sometimes Safari. I have tested this on my G4 PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 1GB Ram as well as on a Quad 2.66 GHZ Core Xeon Mac Pro with 2GB of Ram. Also camino just doesn't really fit in with Leopards new unified look. Have a gander http://tinyurl.com/25remr
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Camino with XUL *is* Firefox - they use the same rendering engine. The UI (and any consequences of it - in this case, extensions and themes) are the only functional difference between the browsers.
        • dragazis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Uhmmm it's goes much deeper than that. Other than Camino using the same rendering engine, it uses native Cocoa widgets and interface (fi3 has only and finally implemented cocoa widgets), keychain support, address support, some sync services support, partially used system dictionary and more. The list can go on on how much more deeply camino is integrated with OS X than firefox. Saying "Camino with XUL *is* Firefox - they use the same rendering engine." is just wrong.
      • tgoose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you'd rather someone had to recode all the functionality of Firefox and add it to Camino rather than just come up with a new GUI and add it to Firefox?

        Why?
        • manitoba98xp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was making the point you were. My first sentence says that "I see why there's a need to divert this to Firefox". So I'm saying that they should simply keep Camino as it is and work on making Firefox fit in more.
  • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Wow, it looks beautiful!

    I may switch back to FF if it looks like this (and it launches faster)
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Who cares about launch speed - you do that once a reboot (which is, what, once every six weeks or so?). I want it more stable and not to get lagged to ***** when websites (I'm looking at you, Digg) have some bad javascript that goes nuts once in a while.
  • deepblue, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I'm using a similar theme right now!

    Download here (for Mac only):
    http://www.takebacktheweb.org/
    • araque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0hey, thanks for this tip, it looks very nice, my firefox needed a facelift
  • WiLLGT09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3that's a fine-lookin' browser.
  • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Mozilla needs to spend time fixing all the bugs, security holes and speeding it up before touching the GUI.
    • Karmavs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Given that, for the most part, those doing the UI aren't the same people that would patch the bugs & holes, I don't see the issue.
    • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I love how every time I put down Firefox you fanboy's digg me down. It's a bad browser, admit it. The only good thing it has is extensions, and because of those Firefox has a ton of security holes now which could **** you entire installation.
  • hamalicious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Hmm.... Why do you people concern yourselves so much with what others like or dislike. It's all really quite simple if you don't like the default look, just install a theme. I have a mac dual booted with vista plus two linux desktops, all use FF as the default browser and I have themes installed on all of them my personal choice is littlefox. Now everyone kiss and makeup especially if your hot chicks.
  • EricVKX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This is looking great. The current firefox mac theme is a trainwreck.
  • jbaez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4i think it looks great and i hope they implement it with FF3. im not sure what eveyone is going crazy over its just a theme, its firefox, and you can change it. done. digg me down now.
  • bpapa, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3This could make for a good prank to play on any Mac Safari user. Install Firefox instead, use the Safari theme, and watch in delight as the unsuspecting victim can't figure out why his web browser is suddenly crashing every half hour.
  • speaker219, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Safari theme for firefox:
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/492 ...
  • wiihuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2putting the stop/reload button between back and forward > copying safari's look
  • omnis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Do we too easily forget that we're on Digg. We have to whine about everything here.
  • nathanielfisher, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9Good. The main things keeping me from using Firefox are:

    1. Dog slow compared to Safari
    2. Ugly as sin, compared to Safari
    3. Safari lets me sync my bookmarks to different computers through .Mac. If that makes me a fanboy, so be it. I'm sure there is an extension to do this in Firefox, but that browser is UI mess.

    I *want* to like Firefox more, but I just don't. It's ugly and slow, but sometimes it works for sites that Safari doesn't.
    • kday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Maybe it's just me, but I never thought Safari's theme was good looking. I always thought the icons were plain and boring. Even though the current Firefox doesn't have a true aqua interface, I still think it looks better than Safari. Also there are browsers out there for OS X that look better than both Safari and Firefox. If I were choosing a browser just for the sake of looks, I would probably go with Camino or OmniWeb.

      That being said, I still use Firefox because several extensions I frequently use just aren't available for Safari/Camino/etc. The "slowness" of Firefox doesn't really bother me either since I have a fast processor and lots of ram.
    • k3vinmartian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is a cross platform sync bookmark add-on called Foxmarks that works well for me. Although, it is not as easy to use as safari's sync and I have accidentally overridden my bookmarks a few times with older backups. However, it is a free service, which is a great alternative to having a .mac account.
    • ninfudo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you could download Fasterfox, a safari theme, and Foxmarks or delicious. What's nice about Firefox is that you can choose which add-ons are right for you instead of having to deal with a bloated software.
    • Nobu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Use google toolbar for firefox. It will sync your bookmarks even you are on different computer.
  • sunyata, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10as an interface designer i feel that what they are doing is smart. they say they're responding to user feedback and it should help promote greater adoption on the mac. most people don't realize that customization is something apple looked at seriously and ditched in favor of a unified experience. that's because users want to be productive and the more familiar the experience is the more productive people feel. boring i know, but that's human nature.
    • pxlpshr, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1thank you.... someone that knows what he's talking about.
  • patrickloggins, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Looks great. Better than Firefox 2, which has the worst theme since Netscape Navigator.
  • kohlmannj, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Whoa whoa whoa everybody! Firefox 3 will still have that same ol' crappy (though *ever* so versatile) XUL interface you know and love! Sure, it'll *look* like it fits in with Mac OS X, but no worries, it'll still behave like a non-native hoaky pile of crap! ;-)

    Grain of salt with everything, people. I'm just glad somebody's paying attention to the Mac OS X version at at all.
    • iindigo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Seriously, Mozilla REALLY needs to work on how XUL feels on Mac OS... it feels so clunky/unresponsive compared to the rest of the system, and it really makes me hate using it.
  • astrosmash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Looks really good, but how, pray tell, do they achieve the unified OS X toolbar while using Gecko to render the UI?
  • bradspry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Embrace and extend. It's a usability tactic. Instant familiarity for Safari users.
    • Create, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1then why not make the windows version look like ie7... i would DIE

      i remember reading somewhere that when you switch away from a default you are looking for something different, and then users complain its not the same... and you just have to keep in mind that something drove you to that change, and if it looked and behaved the same as what you were looking to change then why bother at all?

      furthermore, what about keeping firefox consistent for its users, somehow if i switched to mac and installed firefox, i would be disappointed to find out it didn't look and feel the same as the firefox i know and love, even knowing i can change it (and likely will) there is a certain out of the box look

      //my 2 cents
      • Karmavs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1""Why not make the windows version look like IE7"? - Because part of what people tend to dislike about IE7, causing them to switch, is its UI. Making it look the same as IE7 (which itself looks out of place on XP) removes that benefit.

        However, on OS X, a large part of what is keeping safari users using safari is the interface (which, unlike IE, fits into the OS interface) Also, safari's interface is made almost entirely out of native, or native-alike (like the toolbar buttons, which for seemingly no apparent reason are images instead of normal buttons) elements.

        Still, they should probably actively differentiate on things like the tabs. where there is no native standard.
  • Bassguy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Have you ever seen Safari? That looks nothing like Safari. Other than it is, in fact, a browser.
  • h3llscaper, on 10/17/2007, -6/+4"If you can't innovate, imitate."

    Kinda like what Apple does anyway, amirite? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UjU0rtavE
    • RockinRoel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Kind of like what Apple did. Microsoft is imitating in this age. Firefox's new Mac look isn't exactly imitating either, I'd rather call it integrating.
      Okay, Apple does imitate Google from time to time, but they're getting along just fine.
  • Twee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I use Safari on the Mac. Firefox renders a handful of pages incorrectly for me. I also hate how Firefox has stupid square buttons and can't follow OS X UI guidelines, its almost as bad as Open Office. FOSS on the Mac sucks ass.
  • FHKE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What's the problem?
    FF3 will be a Cocoa app, and it just adapts the Cocoa unified-metal interface.
  • shawnz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2So? It's just a suggestion. buried.
  • CATSCEO, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Those bastards!
  • ismith, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Um, good? Maybe people like me will actually start using FF then. As much as I appreciate FireFox, I can't stand using it because of the ugly UI. This is better, although there are still some flaws (search bar looks like crap, so does progress wheel). And TBH, I wish FF was written in Cocoa. I realize Cocoa isn't the best language around (heh...) but it would make integration in my life soo much easier...
  • .Steven, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1These people are now getting alot of spam: (Why would you have your email address on a page unprotected?)
    asa [A-T] mozilla.org
    bugzilla [A-T] tuxmachine decimal commm
    cbarrett [A-T] mozilla decimal commm
    ...
    • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1asa@mozilla.org
      bugzilla@tuxmachine.com
      cbarrett@mozilla.com

      yeah why would you
  • Chrelion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ahh. I've got the whole Safari thing going on right now, too. Only mine uses Tab Sidebar to approximate Omniweb's tab style, which I tend to prefer over the traditional bar at the top. A vertically scrolling list is so much nicer in situations where you've got tab overflow.

    http://tinyurl.com/yvwmjo
    • potofgravy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can do that with the Firefox Showcase extension. It's pretty nifty.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.